My first post in this series, Implementing a Data Governance Program, talked about finding a specific instance which is creating a problem with direct business impact, which is a great place to start. The next step is to identify the person that is accountable for the fixing the issue. One way to do this is create a RACI (http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/how-to-do-raci-charting-and-analysis.html) chart. Every task will have a single accountable person. This person is usually pretty high up in the organization with titles such as COO, CFO, CMO, Senior VP etc. They usually have veto authority on the outcome of the task. They are also the ones with the burning issue.
Fixing the burning issue, will involve multiple people, potentially a cross functional team that will be doing the actual work. The individuals identifies for your RACI chart will consist of your first work group. It should be easy to make the business case, since the person accountable should already be well-versed with all aspects of the problem.
As a real life example, a major healthcare payer started a data governance work group because the Chief Actuary grew tired of the poor quality of data that he was getting which was directly impacting underwriting. His business pain and frustration planted the seed for implementing governance and metadata management. IT was enthused and eager to help because they had tried to raise the poor data issue to bring business to the table for several years without success.
Conduct a Data Quality / Maturity Assessment – Part 3